J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Battagel, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Battagel, J. M.

British Journal of Orthodontics, Vol 23, 137-144, Copyright © 1996 by British Orthodontic Society

ARTICLES

The assessment of crowding without the need to record arch perimeter. Part I: Arches with acceptable alignment

JM Battagel
Department of Orthodontics, London Hospital Medical College Dental School, U.K.

A simplified, mathematically determined technique for calculating arch perimeter (the overlap method) is described and its validity in determining an accurate assessment of crowding is tested. Indices, expressed in millimetres of crowding or spacing, were computed for both the whole arch and the labial segment alone. Study casts of 36 individuals with clinically acceptable lower arches were used to validate the method. The degree of crowding or spacing calculated was compared with a "clinical' assessment of each arch, in which the irregularity was measured directly using a steel ruler. Various calculation schemes were tested. Depending on exactly how the overlap was determined, the results varied slightly. Although the arches showed acceptable alignment, it was preferable to include a strategy for normalizing the positions of any rotated teeth before the overlaps were calculated. Repositioning any bucco-lingually displaced teeth into the line of the arch, however, was not useful. For the complete arch good agreement with the clinical assessment was reached on 31 occasions and for the labial segment, all but one appraisals were within 0.5 mm of each other. In the remaining instances (five complete arches and one labial segment), the degree of crowding or spacing was between 0.5 and 1 mm of the clinical assessment. Considering that clinical measurement of minor degrees of crowding and spacing cannot be precise, these results were considered acceptable. The method was easy to use, relying only on the recording of mesio-distal tooth widths and was acceptably reproducible. The technique would therefore appear to provide a valid yet simple research tool with which to record the degree of crowding. Its ability to cope with irregular and crowded arches will be the subject of a subsequent review.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
E. Bernabe and C. Flores-Mir
Estimating arch length discrepancy through Little's Irregularity Index for epidemiological use
Eur J Orthod, June 1, 2006; 28(3): 269 - 273.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 British Orthodontic Society.